What Does A Watch Need To Have In Order To Be Great?

One of the things watch enthusiasts love to argue about the most is the whole question of so-called "in-house" movements. A movement is the mechanism inside a watch that actually keeps time — gears, mainspring, the movement plates that hold everything together like ingredients in a shiny metal sandwich, and so on. Watch companies that make this mechanism themselves are said to use "in-house" movements (the term "manufacture" is just a French synonym) and as a rule, watch enthusiasts vastly prefer in-house movements as offering... well, what exactly?

An in-house watch movement is thought desirable because of the perception that such movements are more exclusive, or of higher quality, or that it's more traditional (and hence, more appealing, as perceived adherence to tradition is a big deal in the post-quartz era of mechanical watchmaking). The problem is that, as with most generalizations, none of these really hold up under close examination.

The notion that an in-house movement is in some way inherently better is an illusion born of many factors, but one of the biggest causes is the ubiquity of movements made by the Swatch Group's ETA subsidiary. ETA makes a number of movements, but three of them — the 2892, the 2824 and the chronograph 7750, all self-winding — are especially widely seen. They were some of the very few movements available for manufacturers wishing to make watches but unwilling or unable to shoulder the cost of developing and making their own movements during the 1970s and '80s. Despite attempts by the Swatch Group to limit or outright eliminate sales of complete movements, these calibers and others by ETA, as well as Swatch Group subsidiary Nivarox's balances and balance springs, remain essential to the continued operation of an enormous number of watch brands.

Disdain for outsourced movements in general and ETA movements in particular had reached a fever pitch in watch enthusiast circles by the beginning of the century. One of the most common objections was that they weren't "exclusive" enough. While it's true that such movements are seen in a huge variety of watches, the finished products are often widely varied, as ETA sells the movements in several grades, and watch manufacturers can do quite a lot of additional work on the movements before they're cased. And, of course, such movements allow watch companies to make mechanical watches available at relatively affordable prices. Rolex movements are some of the best made today in terms of mechanical quality, reliability, and accuracy; they are in-house but arguably not especially exclusive in the numbers Rolex makes them.

On the other hand, one of the most complicated and exclusive watches ever made — Il Destriero Scafusia, a complicated watch made by IWC — has a movement that started life as an ETA 7750 chronograph, and ended up as perpetual calendar, rattrapante chronograph and minute repeater — with a flying tourbillon — grand complication. Complaining that the watch uses "just" a 7750 is like complaining that a Bugatti Veyron is like a Trabant. Both are cars (well, there is some argument about the Trabant, but you get the idea) but the comparison ends there.